I understand Peter. Apology accepted Brutal. The question of whether astral projection is real or not is still a worthy one and deserves an answer. I believe we have answered where science currently stands regarding it.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:I understand Peter. Apology accepted Brutal. The question of whether astral projection is real or not is still a worthy one and deserves an answer. I believe we have answered where science currently stands regarding it.

[ Post made via Android ]

For once, we agree haha!!

I also am sorry, I believe I may have slightly caused this too. I was never trying to force someone else's beliefs though, merely trying to get them to admit that they don't know and neither do I.

I'm pretty surprised by the results. Only someone that's never experienced it before could possibly say it's just another lucid dream. You actually experience yourself separating from your corporal body. There's absolutely no mistaking it from just another dream. Then the experience itself is far more vivid too than even the most vivid dreams I've had.

I can understand simply not believing in it at all. I'm agnostic too and wouldn't believe any outside the box stuff unless I personally experienced it. IMO that's how it should be too. You should never take anyone's word for anything and always trust your own experiences and senses. But to liken to just another dream, I really cannot fathom. If you believe that's the case then it was, in fact, just another dream, and you didn't really experience a genuine OBE.

But I do not believe the experience takes place in the same waken reality we find ourselves in right now. Like you couldn't write yourself a note, and wake up and see it there on the table, for instance. This is something I never subscribed to. I'm not sure remote viewing, for instance is possible. To my experience my surroundings look genuine. Like when I first leave my corporal body I'll be in my room and be able to see all the furniture, etc... all where it should be. But if I look at fine details I can see it's not the same. Like look at that grandfather clock once, and see symbols instead of numbers. Or in the call log of my cell phone. Open the fridge and see an entire city in there instead of that bucket of chicken that should be there. And then the further I get from my body the more things warp & skew even. By the time I'm outside my house and down the block I'll be in a completely different environment.

[quote="Goldkoron"]My theory is, if shared conscious is possible and shared dreaming etc, if remote viewing were possible, I think we are all connected on a human web network. Such as our brains can connect to other people's brains via some frequency. So if we were for example, remote viewing some other area, we would be getting that information from other people on the large core network.[/quote]

I like the word "archive" best. But basically yeah, I get a similar impression. I mean if at one time everything in this universe was all one... one tiny, ridiculously dense spec of matter. Even as we expand our own ways wouldn't some thing(s) remain interconnected? Biological life forms and this universe act in very much the same way machines & computers do. With everything I see this universe would function in a very similar matter to that of a super computer.

I won't even pretend that I can back up my views scientifically. I'm no scientist. And sadly I believe science draws far too many premature conclusions, and it prevents it from truly understanding many affairs, as the book should remain open instead in many cases, and the proverbial cup at least half empty.

I've experienced the 'separation of body too' and it comes in many forms. Usually vibrations, a buzzing drone sound, floating and/or sinking. I wonder if it is simply our minds trying to make sense of the confusion of muscle atonia.

The experience that ensues afterward is always far more vivid and realistic than my typical DILDs, but perhaps it is because we have more awareness of self. (In most lucid dreams, I control it, but they are absurd and I forget who I am and don't have my waking sense of self).

Then sometimes I do and have all my senses. There is a big difference, but maybe it's just semantics to describe the intensity of the same 'wind storm'. (From my earlier post).

Let me pose this question and I bet scientific studies have been done: What if you take a brain scan of someone eating a chocolate cake in real life, and then take a brain scan of them eating a chocolate cake in a dream. The more similar it is, the more realistic it is for the dreamer.

Our brains are miraculous illusion machines!

(Perhaps waking life is an illusion too and there is a fine line. That's why I am still agnostic about this.)

ESPer wrote:I won't even pretend that I can back up my views scientifically. I'm no scientist. And sadly I believe science draws far too many premature conclusions, and it prevents it from truly understanding many affairs

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? You said the following (which includes the assumption that real OOBEs do occur):

ESPer wrote:You should never take anyone's word for anything and always trust your own experiences and senses. But to liken to just another dream, I really cannot fathom. If you believe that's the case then it was, in fact, just another dream, and you didn't really experience a genuine OBE.

As I explained before, the agnostic position is a weak one in the face of overwhelming evidence against the notion of astral projection. Of course it was "just another dream" and no genuine OOBE was experienced because all OOBEs are products of an active mind during sleep. Genuine OOBEs simply do not occur because all such experiences are illusions.

I have experienced OOBEs, WILDs and DILDs. It is true that there seems to be a tendency for the experience to be more vivid (hyper-realistic even) when one seemingly separates from the body. But this cannot be used as evidence that it is not a dream (i.e. occurring in your head.) I have also had DILDs which have been extremely vivid and I could even get them to hyper-realistic qualities by simply heightening my senses within the lucid dream world.

All you have done is point out the different intensities of lucid dreaming and the fact that some people call them "astral projection" or "OOBE" if they happen to be really intense. All of this is well covered in Michael Raduga's "The Phase Guidebook." Stephen LaBerge has also highlighted what would constitute as proof in his "Exploring The World of Lucid Dreaming." Such evidence is yet to be presented and it seems highly unlikely in the face of surmounting evidence against vitalism.

As I said to AceOfSpades before:

Summerlander wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:I think it's real. There are ways of telling the difference between a dream and an astral trip.

This does not seem like a viable way to conclude a discrimination between lucid dreaming and the belief-centric astral projection affair. One must bear in mind that the dreaming mind has an infinite potential to concoct any credible and incredible scenario from the mundane to the abstract and truly profound. This factor alone dismisses your premise. Sorry but I had to point out that your statement upholds a very weak a priori judgement. This is, after all, the dream science forum.

I'm not surprised at the results at all. I think people are starting to wake up regarding the amazing illusions/porkies the brain can concoct and which we may voluntarily induce.

ESPer wrote:But if I look at fine details I can see it's not the same. Like look at that grandfather clock once, and see symbols instead of numbers. Or in the call log of my cell phone. Open the fridge and see an entire city in there instead of that bucket of chicken that should be there. And then the further I get from my body the more things warp & skew even. By the time I'm outside my house and down the block I'll be in a completely different environment.

This is very typical in lucid dreams. Symbols instead of numbers on clocks as the dream world itself expresses the abstract side of your mind, the part which does not deal in numbers or language and the lucid observer spots this anomaly directly. An entire city inside a fridge is also far removed from reality and visits Dali's surrealism. And the more you move away from your dream house the more the environment starts to look less familiar as you mentally remove yourself from that concept and other thoughts (conscious or unconscious) begin to express themselves. Did you know that Carl Jung referred to this as "active imagination," ESPer?

Ask any lucid dreamer in this forum with a bit of experience and they will tell you that they have experienced similar things under the label of "lucid dreaming," even when that includes the illusion of separating from one's physical body.

HAGART wrote:Perhaps waking life is an illusion too and there is a fine line. That's why I am still agnostic about this.

Our perception of reality is indeed one big illusion... but not reality itself. Stars are born and explode whether we know about them or not. The universe is expanding faster and faster whether we know about it, understand it, or not. The escape velocity for all the objects on the surface of our planet, whether one likes it or not, is 7 miles per second (a factor any rocket scientist building a spaceship must take into consideration.)

In a dream, we can mould what we perceive as we please, more so when we are lucid. We may also fly slowly upwards and into space because the laws of physics, including gravity, don't really exist (if they seem present it is only because we are allowing for mental barriers, or we believe them to be there in the first place. Likewise, if we believe the dream world to be some astral plane, it will behave like one (or our idea of what one would be like.)

And hence the difference between subjective and objective. In dreams things happen according to our states of mind. In reality, things happen regardless (i.e. independent of minds.)

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Don't get me wrong, I study to be a scientist one day, I don't believe the existence of Astral stuff, unicorns, etc. I'm only trying to show Summerland that he should not have that positive (positivism) and dogmatic ‘’science is absolute and explains everything ‘’ view of reality ^^I don't believe anyone disrespected other person. I'm with Peter, I will show my arguments and never attack the others. I just want to enrich my knowledge and get new conclusions.

I will address different things that have been said:

Summerander: ''First, Einstein did not destroy Newton's laws''

Answer: This subject is a bit beyond my knowledge, but I read somewhere (documentary I guess) that Einstein disproved some Newton’s stuff and that shook the notion of certainty in science. I’m not sure, so, I would be glad if you give the information.

A: I believe Brutal Honesty said some interesting stuff, not just metaphors and whatnot, and you should address those arguments.He said two things:1: ‘’(Science) It's an ideology based solely on beliefs, because at any point, science, scientists for that matter, believe that ANY "fact" can be proven false based solely on one repeatable experiment. 2: ‘’Even its laws, it's most holy doctrine, can be disproved in a single day, by a well designed, repeatable experiment’’I believe that he is sharing my anti- verificationism belief, saying that we can, at any point ‘’disprove’’ the early knowledge, so it means that what we thought to be true/proved, is false, so we can never assume for certain the truth of something. But I would enjoy if he explained this a bit more, just because it was the substantial part of his text

Summerlander:‘’Yes, highly improbable, cannot say impossible’’ and ‘’such things are not feasible and after searching for such things with the right protocol we can safely say that they are simply not there’’

A: The two phrases contradict each other. Your contradiction probably shows that you don’t like that esoteric vudu stuff and is hard for you to accept that those things may not be possible to prove impossible. I too, don’t like when people believe in that sort of thing for no reason, but what to trying to debate where is the impossibility of those things.

Summerlander:’' if it was there, we would have found it by now’’

A: You know better than me that it’s incorrect. The same thing could have been said a lot of time ago when everybody thought the earth was flat, etc etc

Summerlander: David Copperfield example:

A: If you said that you could fly because you have the flu I could not disprove that. Observation gives you the notion that you cannot fly , therefore, if the observation does not correspond to the reality, everything may have the possibility of happening . Even, inside the scientific realm I could not disprove. Empirical science’s conclusions are based on induction and on the assumption that the rules of the game are constant, etc etc Are you getting the picture?

Summerlander: ‘’ You see how nonsensical that sounds? How can one disprove something that has not been proved or verified in any way whatsoever in the first place? Hence your reasoning shoots itself in the foot.’’

A: Something that is proved can’t be disproved, it’s a logical flaw. If you disprove something it means that was not proved in the first place

I don’t find the existence of unicorns ridicule. All things are in the same level, regarding this kind of thinkingThis takes me to the last thing:

Summerlander:‘’Our perception of reality is indeed one big illusion... but not reality itself ‘’

A: The knowledge of reality itself, whatever that is, is only given by perception, that’s the point. How can you say that ‘’The universe is expanding faster and faster whether we know about it’’?? You don’t even know if the universe really exists. We all could be dreaming right know…although any example I give is a bit controversial, because they would me based on observation too(ex: the notion of dreaming)... But the central idea is that you don’t know if you can absolutely prove anything, whatever that is(again) – something similar to absolute truth, and science is not, is scientific truth, and that is other thing.

ESPer wrote:I'm pretty surprised by the results. Only someone that's never experienced it before could possibly say it's just another lucid dream. You actually experience yourself separating from your corporal body. There's absolutely no mistaking it from just another dream. Then the experience itself is far more vivid too than even the most vivid dreams I've had.

Actually, even having such an experience yourself wouldn't prove that Astral Projection exists. You are asleep, after all. How do you know that it wasn't just a very vivid dream? You can't trust your feelings or your senses on this one.

Thinker wrote:I'm only trying to show Summerland that he should not have that positive (positivism) and dogmatic ‘’science is absolute and explains everything ‘’ view of reality ^^

I never said science explains everything but it is the best method of enquiry we have. If you hark back to one of my previous remarks:

"Science makes progress and scientists are humble enough to admit they don't have all the answers - but they are certainly doing their best to get them. Science has also studied the brain and measured activity against levels of reported consciousness and its conclusions make it highly unlikely that vitalism holds any water. What is said about the acceptance of lucid dreaming cannot be said for spirits controlling bodies or the existence of astral planes. Some people try to use the TV analogy with electricity and all. But electricity is something observable and measurable and thus part of the physical world. In the brain, no self or spiritual life force is found."

Thinker wrote:Answer: This subject is a bit beyond my knowledge, but I read somewhere (documentary I guess) that Einstein disproved some Newton’s stuff and that shook the notion of certainty in science. I’m not sure, so, I would be glad if you give the information.

I think you might be referring to the fact that Einstein opined once that the classical physics of Newton were not enough to explain the mechanics of reality, especially when it came to electromagnetic interaction. Eventually, Einstein's work would help to develop quantum theory, a better candidate. Newton's corpuscle theory of light (as opposed to Huygen's wave theory) alone also failed to explain some of its behaviour following experimentation. Still, today the theory isn't necessarily wrong, just incomplete and in need of a quantum mechanical touch in its equations, hence the wave-particle duality.

I will stop there to prevent too much digression and will just add that this only illustrates what I said earlier regarding science: it is not dogmatic, it produces rich scientific theories and then tests them. It refines it's picture of the world and helps us to get to wherever the evidence may lead.

Thinker wrote:Brutal Honesty: 1: ‘’(Science) It's an ideology based solely on beliefs, because at any point, science, scientists for that matter, believe that ANY "fact" can be proven false based solely on one repeatable experiment.

If I must address Brutal's comments, so be it. The above is a false assumption. Science is not an ideology solely based on beliefs. It is a method of enquiry. He also has not provided any examples that we can verify and he is not clear about what he means by "fact" in that sentence. All he seems to allude to is the fact that if a team of scientists claim to have discovered something and provide a demonstration of how they arrived at their conclusions, other teams will test what they claim - often repeating or expanding their experiments.

That's how the scientific community works. They will use verification as well as falsifiability (note that this doesn't necessarily mean proving something to be false, it is also another method employed which may lead to a refinement of the theory). If the theory stands the test of time, usually due to overwhelming evidence, then it is correct and facts are established. For example, evolution is one of them. It's a fact.

Thinker wrote:2: ‘’Even its laws, it's most holy doctrine, can be disproved in a single day, by a well designed, repeatable experiment’’ - I believe that he is sharing my anti- verificationism belief, saying that we can, at any point ‘’disprove’’ the early knowledge, so it means that what we thought to be true/proved, is false, so we can never assume for certain the truth of something. But I would enjoy if he explained this a bit more, just because it was the substantial part of his text

What he said starts with the nonsensical premise that science upholds a holy doctrine. Much of this can be dismissed with what I said earlier regarding verificationism and falsifiability. Falsifiability is also a form of verification and can potentially reinforce certainty or prove a theory to be incorrect. Yes, science also takes Karl Popper into consideration - as I pointed out earlier with that Krauss quote.

Thinker wrote:Summerlander:‘’Yes, highly improbable, cannot say impossible’’ and ‘’such things are not feasible and after searching for such things with the right protocol we can safely say that they are simply not there’’

I do seem to be contradicting myself there but I am not. You see, there is a difference between saying something is impossible (which I have not said) and saying something is not happening according to the evidence. Can you spot the difference?

At the roots of reality, the quantum realm, possible/impossible are replaced by probable/improbable. In its own way, it still takes the shortest route from "A" to "B" so to speak. Quantum laws, for example, do not forbid a grain of sand (made of many quantum particles) to hop out of a closed matchbox unaided. This seems weird but it's true. However, because the grain is an enormous object in the quantum realm, it starts to obey Newton's laws of motion... so to us, it appears to be still and not going anywhere. The bigger things get, the more time is incremented.

Calculations tell us that a grain of sand would need the age of the universe a thousand times over in order to hop out of the box. Quantum-mechanically speaking, this is a highly improbable event. Classically, you might as well say it won't happen (safe to use the word impossible within our context). You see what's happening here? Likewise, it has been recently predicted that our universe only has 20-30 billion years to go because the Higgs field was found to be metastable (as opposed to stable), and, as the cosmos expands, a bubble of space is likely to emerge and grow like a cancer destroying everything in its wake. This will also solve another paradox physicists have wrestled with: Boltzmann brains. They'll never happen and sorry to digress again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

I cannot say something is completely impossible because in science this is a bold claim when we have attempts at theories of everything (and even "anything") that often include multiple universes or alternate realities. I can, and I have, however, say that something is "infeasible" as this word tells us that something is not viable (in this case according to evidence and how our reality operates) but not necessarily impossible. If our universe was different, who knows? Perhaps in a different universe, conscious beings have a life-force like a soul, which is the source of their conscious awareness, and this can be scientifically established there (although they'd be pressed to solve the mystery of how such essence is conscious in the first place.

In our universe, however, dualism or vitalism present us with a picture that has been tested against reality and guess what: it has remained a hypothesis ever since - as opposed to a rich scientific theory full of calculations and observations that are later tested with experimentation. The idea that claims souls, the afterlife, and astral projection are real has not taken off and does not hold enough substance to form a theory like that of gravity or evolution. It does not even compare with Tonomi's integrated information theory of consciousness and seems even more infeasible against Koch's neuro-scientific observations.

Harking back: "After searching for such things with the right protocol we can safely say that they are simply not there. We've got devices that can detect frequencies beyond the range of human perception, we even have hadron colliders that uncovered the Higgs field, and yet, the one thing vitalists say give us a life force, such as a soul or spirit, something that supposedly controls the physical body (thus grossly interacting with physical systems) cannot be found."

Thinker wrote:Summerlander:’' if it was there, we would have found it by now’’A: You know better than me that it’s incorrect. The same thing could have been said a lot of time ago when everybody thought the earth was flat, etc etc

You are not taking into account, however, that a "long time ago" was before the scientific revolution and the world was a different place then. People were afraid to defy the accepted views of the time, the dogmatic mores, the religious and superstitious beliefs. Suppression was ripe. Do you know what Galileo went through just to prove that Ptolemy was wrong?

Today, the world is more secular, there is more freedom of expression, which in turn facilitates the establishment of facts through science. In saying this, modern people can still be anti-science. In some parts of the US teachers can still be tried for teaching evolution (a well established fact).

Still, science has made progress. Because of this, it established that lucid dreaming is real and that it occurs when the brain is in a hybrid state of activity (somewhere between waking and dreaming) quite distinct from ordinary dreaming and the waking state. It has also made certain predictions which have come true - like the discovery of the Higgs boson. This was proposed in the 1960's and confirmed to exist earlier this year, and, although you may say it has taken nearly half a century that is because the means for scientists to test their predictions wasn't available for at least the first four decades. (The Large Hadron Collider was built at the start of this millennium.)

Meanwhile, astral planes of existence remain far from the height of scientific theories that lead to falsifiable predictions (reminder: to be tested): they are at the hypothetical level and nothing but a belief without substance. Faith-based really. People who have claimed to be astral projecting are found to be prone to lucid dreaming. 25 gram myths started by Christian pseudo-scientists are also quickly ruled out and their dodgy experiments dismissed. Their biased conclusions are quickly ruled out. Their so-called evidence turns out to reflect either errors or mundane factors that were conveniently dismissed (loss of bodily fluids at death, sweat evaporation, faulty scales etc.).

Thinker wrote:A: If you said that you could fly because you have the flu I could not disprove that.

No. In my example I said that I could fly but could not show you because I had the flu.

Thinker wrote:Observation gives you the notion that you cannot fly , therefore, if the observation does not correspond to the reality, everything may have the possibility of happening.

No. The observation that one has never been seen to fly may lead to the a priori deduction that one cannot fly indeed. However, if the individual in question claims that he can fly, we are pressed to test this. If the claimant can indeed fly, this should be demonstrable. If he claims he can't because he has the flu, we still give him the benefit of the doubt and wait until he gets better. If he gets better and refuses to provide us with a demonstration, then we are entitled to be sceptic or suspicious.

In other words, there is no reason to believe that the claimant can fly. Why would you? To believe without evidence is unreasonable. If the claimant has something to prove, let him prove it and then we'll change our minds. Science does not cling to ideas or hold dogmas, it follows evidence wherever it may lead.

So, yeah, show us you can fly and then we'll try to establish how and why. Demonstrate and we can go from there: he does not have wings or rockets attached to him; there is no weird weather making him appear to be flying; we can rule out strings; let's look at his skin pores, his brain, magnetic field etc.

Thinker wrote:Even, inside the scientific realm I could not disprove. Empirical science’s conclusions are based on induction and on the assumption that the rules of the game are constant, etc etc Are you getting the picture?

You can rule things out. You can even assess the make-up of the claimant and get a good idea of whether or not he can fly. As for the assumption that the rules of the game are constant, I don't really get it? What do you mean? If anything, science observes reality constantly moving and changing, even the atom! Yes, we are now confident enough that if you mix chemical X with Y you will get an explosion, we may expect this to happen because we have observed such to happen many times before and we have come to understand the mechanics.

This does not come from assumptions, this comes from observations and conclusions. Established facts involve rigorous studies. If we talk about constants such as gravitation, speed of light, or even the cosmological one, well, that is because they are there and their energies/behaviours have been worked out or measurements have been made. We also observe how these impact on reality. We can also predict changes for the universe (one mentioned earlier with the Higgs field and the prevention of Boltzmann brains). If we talk about the virtual particles of quantum theory, we cannot measure them (as they exist for an extremely short period of time for us to do so) but we know that they are there as we can observe their indirect impact on reality. Moreover, quarks only make up about 30% of protons, the rest (70%) is virtual particles - and since we are made of gazillions of atoms, you do the math!

As you can see, it is far from black and white.

Thinker wrote:Summerlander: ‘’ You see how nonsensical that sounds? How can one disprove something that has not been proved or verified in any way whatsoever in the first place? Hence your reasoning shoots itself in the foot.’’A: Something that is proved can’t be disproved, it’s a logical flaw. If you disprove something it means that was not proved in the first place

I agree with your answer and will concede that I made a very poor choice of words this time. Let me rephrase then: "How can one disprove something that has not been demonstrated in the first place?"

This goes back to what I was saying about a hypothesis being the weakest position and a scientific theory (note: not to be mistaken for our quotidian use of the term "theory") being the strongest. In the David Copperfield context, the demonstration would not constitute proof of unaided flying but it would be necessary for science to formulate theories for what is being observed.

The theory of strings would contend that he is not really flying, just giving the illusion of such. The theory of rockets, mirrors, projected holograms, anti-gravity technology, weather etc. would contend the same. Can he fly anywhere? Let's assume so. Bear in mind that all of these theories would need testing which will determine whether they will survive or be ruled out. Following scientific methodology, as you know, will include verificationism and falsifiability. Once you rule out the "illusion of flying" theories, you can move on to theories of flying. What, in his anatomy/physiology is enabling him to fly? What is the physics, chemistry, biology involved and so on...

Anyway, as I was saying, simply making the claim is not enough. If someone tells me flying pigs exist, will I believe in such things straight away? Erm...no. Is the claimant likely to be lying? Why would the claimant lie? Okay, the claimant is marked by honesty among peers and seems to believe in what he claims. Have you seen one? Yes. Well, where? Let's go there. I don't see any (maybe the pigs flew somewhere else). We'll search. Can't find them. Let's take a look at your head to make sure you are not crazy or delusional. Perhaps you might even have seen an illusion? Let's try to recreate the conditions as you remember them etc. etc.

Thinker wrote:I don’t find the existence of unicorns ridicule. All things are in the same level

If they existed in the first place, I wouldn't find their existence ridiculous either. However, I find the belief in them ridiculous when there is no evidence for them whatsoever. As you can see, not all things are on the same level. Some are seen to exist and their existence can be empirically established. Others remain the stuff of folklore and legend, dreams and fantasy.

Thinker wrote: Summerlander:‘’Our perception of reality is indeed one big illusion... but not reality itself ‘’A: The knowledge of reality itself, whatever that is, is only given by perception, that’s the point. How can you say that ‘’The universe is expanding faster and faster whether we know about it’’??

This gives us fertile ground for an epistemological debate but I'm afraid we'd digress again and Peter wouldn't like it...so I'll be brief. True. We need consciousness and perception in order to know anything. But there are certain things that can be verified which are objective as opposed to subjective. A human being can see a mountain in the distance using vision. A bat does not see but it can infer that an obstacle (the mountain) is there using sound waves - its own biological version of sonar. Both creatures perceive the mountain differently, in other words, they formulate different subjective models of the mountain. The object, however, really exists independent of their minds or perception. Both can die and the mountain will still be there.

In a similar vein, the universe has been expanding even before scientists discovered this. Some people are still oblivious to the this, an old timer may still think it's static and eternal...meanwhile, others observe it to be expanding. The truth is objective and undeniable regardless of what oblivious people think or dream. In fact, scientists often say that the cosmos keeps surprising them and it can often outdo human imagination.

Thinker wrote:You don’t even know if the universe really exists. We all could be dreaming right know…although any example I give is a bit controversial, because they would me based on observation too(ex: the notion of dreaming)... But the central idea is that you don’t know if you can absolutely prove anything, whatever that is(again) – something similar to absolute truth, and science is not, is scientific truth, and that is other thing.

Again, I would use my reasoning above against this unproductive and unproven solipsism. You are certainly entitled to your philosophical scepticism, but then, where will that lead you? Do you believe that I don't exist? That you are dreaming me up in some brain in a vat experiment? Then why would you bother talking to me? Perhaps you think it is more like "The Matrix" scenario, in which case, we still exist in some way and our universe would be a very intricate illusion (though still existent as such). If the universe is a matrix of some sort that gives the illusion of a 3D reality, then we have no choice but to play with it and our knowledge is based on how this illusion works. So, we still know something (just not something about the world beyond the simulation if one exists.

But this is all hypothetical. You got any evidence to support this claim? Please don't mention the Holographic universe as I debunked that as a valid argument ages ago and you would only prompt me to write another essay.

If your argument is coming from Søren Kierkegaard's existentialism, where consciousness comes before matter, know that such extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. I can give arguments for the likelihood of consciousness being an illusory by-product and why free will is an incoherent concept - also an illusion that would remove the responsibility of sentient beings that is valued in existentialism.

It is true that science does not yet have an answer for everything but it may get there one day given the chance. Here's a relevant quote:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."- Charles Darwin

Let me finish with the following. People can perceive the objective world and agree that such things are what we call "real." Sometimes a faulty brain can perceive things which are not there, i.e. cannot be verified by others. We dream, hallucinate, and can delude ourselves. We have our own private worlds. But there is one that does not change like a dream does. One that takes longer to change and does not bend to our will. There are other things we take for granted. For example, we feel conscious and assume that others are, too, because they can speak and display similar behaviour to ours. They exude an air of consciousness according to our observations. This is the evidence we have which makes solipsism seem absurd. You are only talking to me, because, like me, you have developed a theory of mind.

Teraku wrote:

ESPer wrote:I'm pretty surprised by the results. Only someone that's never experienced it before could possibly say it's just another lucid dream. You actually experience yourself separating from your corporal body. There's absolutely no mistaking it from just another dream. Then the experience itself is far more vivid too than even the most vivid dreams I've had.

Actually, even having such an experience yourself wouldn't prove that Astral Projection exists. You are asleep, after all. How do you know that it wasn't just a very vivid dream? You can't trust your feelings or your senses on this one.

Touche!

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

I don't understand the "pot calling the kettle black" comment. My 2 comments seem to compliment each other, actually. Trust your own experiences of course, but never close the book on a matter. You would keep expanding upon your views as you take in more experiences.

Ironically, that you think my 2 comments are mutually exclusive is precisely the problem I find with science. Funny that you of all people would misinterpret it that way... twas my point exactly pretty much. Thanks for providing an example.